4 big planes
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
What have I created??
Airbus are perfectly safe....at least a safe as Boeing anyway. As for which one is "nicer"...totally depends on the airline. THEY pick the trim level. Compare an Air Canada A330, and a Delta 767-400, and I assure you that the '67 is nicer.
And yes...the A380 is a little ways away from being certified. The four in the pics, are the only ones currently in existance. It is also 6 months behind schedule and EADS stock just recently tanked (partly) because of it.
Airbus are perfectly safe....at least a safe as Boeing anyway. As for which one is "nicer"...totally depends on the airline. THEY pick the trim level. Compare an Air Canada A330, and a Delta 767-400, and I assure you that the '67 is nicer.
And yes...the A380 is a little ways away from being certified. The four in the pics, are the only ones currently in existance. It is also 6 months behind schedule and EADS stock just recently tanked (partly) because of it.
Oh and my favourite T-shirt from the late 90's....
"Refuse Toulouse".... always thought that was clever.
"Refuse Toulouse".... always thought that was clever.
That is clever. But you're an ass.
Read the docs, study them, read the retorts. Roselawn (ATR crash), Concorde, Toulouse, JFK, I could go on. Yes, you could cite Colorado Springs and Aliquippa as counter points, but the track record is clear. From the flight crew perspective, there are inherent safety features in Boeing's that are not in Airbuses. From symbol generators, to human factors research (of which an Airbus exec ADMITTED during a press interview in 1994 that "we find little value in understanding the human factors aspect of our systems"), there is a clear, resounding message in the design of EADS aircraft. I'll provide citations later today, I'm late for my third meeting of the day.
While yes, the airlines do pick the trim levels, and yes, they do have their choice of completion center, the fit and finish in upper classes is WORLDS AWAY better on Boeing than it is on any Airbus I've ever flown. Take the Pepsi Challenge and experience it for yourself. I've been in all three, for all different lengths of trips, and I can promise you, there is a difference. Boeing produces better work any day than Airbus can.
And why with the personal TV screen? Why waste the time? My laptop has everything I need to be entertained, including my own set of movies, not some random Hollywood crap.
Cheers,
-Andrew
I actually live in Lexington, where the Comair flight went down. Though it may not seem possible, they've flown the Concorde and numerous 747's into the larger 7000 foot runway.
Whichever comes with the hotter flight attendants...and does not crash, of course. Otherwise, the flight attendants have to be REALLY hot. Horrible firey plane crash hot. But that's more the operators problem.
On the other hand, Boeing is much more fun to say than Airbus. Airbus, what a lame name for a company...might as well call it...well, Airbus. It's tough to even think of a lamer name. Aeroconveyance? Surrendairmonkey? Bah, I got nothin...
On the other hand, Boeing is much more fun to say than Airbus. Airbus, what a lame name for a company...might as well call it...well, Airbus. It's tough to even think of a lamer name. Aeroconveyance? Surrendairmonkey? Bah, I got nothin...
I told my co-workers about this thread.
They laughed.
They laughed.
On a related note.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/08/30/pilot.lockout.reut/index.html
Suppose other pilots are mocking him now?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/08/30/pilot.lockout.reut/index.html
Suppose other pilots are mocking him now?
Ho-hum, MMike makes the f*cken things and I trust him more than some random person like, say, you.
For big planes and long flights, I'll take a new Airbus over an old 747 anyday... hmmmm, tv in the seats, vs some crappy pg movie showed on a 13" screen 20' away.
and Cathay shows movies unedited...
and Cathay shows movies unedited...
I used to anyway.....
Think about what you just said......
Whatever.
Damnit, I forgot my 3D glasses at home!Size comparison:
Aww....c'mon....
Let's see NTSB reports!
Let's see NTSB reports!
F'ing airbus spies....
I'll ask eem, but I don't sink e'll be very keen. We've already got one, you see?
What?
He's says they've already got one!
What?
He's says they've already got one!
heh heh yeah and you need to be careful with what laptop you try to use.....Airlines won't let some be used inflight, they make you take the batteries out!
lthumbsdown:
lthumbsdown:They do? Sheet. Flying is really becoming less and less fun. Gimme a flight to James Bay man. No security, nice and bumpy-like. But wait, you wind up in James Bay. Nevermind...heh heh yeah and you need to be careful with what laptop you try to use.....Airlines won't let some be used inflight, they make you take the batteries out!
So far only dell's due to their amazing exploding batteries. Possibly macs and sonys soon as well (same battery manufacturer).heh heh yeah and you need to be careful with what laptop you try to use.....Airlines won't let some be used inflight, they make you take the batteries out!
Also, I just flew on a few 12.5 hour flights. I am not sure there are any laptopbatteries that last that long. And most 747-ERs don't have power unless you are in the business or first class sections. So ya, in seat entertainment is a must.
Yeah it's from those Dell ones that had the (sony?? ) batteries selfcombust recently. 
*edit* damn the ebully beat me to it.
*edit* damn the ebully beat me to it.
Apple combusts in JapanYeah it's from those Dell ones that had the (sony?? ) batteries selfcombust recently.
*edit* damn the ebully beat me to it.
If there's anything you should be worried about, it's those Russian planes!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.plane.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.plane.ap/index.html
Having just been on two different Russian airplanes in the last month, I can absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt declare the worst scariest planes in the world to be Russian. I'd rather fly in my own plane that I made drunk.
Oh yeah! In India, they still have a large fleet of ex Soviet aircraft floating around. I generally only fly Jet Airways when in-country (which are old, ex-European Boeing's), but on my last trip, they tried to book me on a Tupolev... glad I noticed it before I got to the country
Cheers,
-Andrew
Sure!
I'm trying to find the full NTSB report, not just the record locator - but they may have moved it off-line. This is from the Roselawn, IN accident, which was when an ATR-72 entered SLD icing conditions and (IIRC) had an elevator stall, which then caused an unrecoverable condition in which the pilots had no ability to recover (later, NASA and FAA did a study with Twin Otters in simulated SLD conditions, stalling the elevators and trying recovery techniques. You can get the video from NASA still...)
The biggest parts (that are discussed in detail in the full report, but only higlighted in the synopsis) are:
"Contributing to the accident were: 1) the French Directorate General for Civil Aviation's (DGAC's) inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72, and its failure to take the necessary corrective action to ensure continued airworthiness in icing conditions; and 2) the DGAC's failure to provide the FAA with timely airworthiness information developed from previous ATR incidents and accidents in icing conditions,". DGAC directly blamed the pilots of the ATR for improperly acting to the tailplane stall instead of a design deficency on the part of ATR's aircraft [of which, the DGAC was a part controller of)
The DGAC had been accused, by the FAA through the WTO, on numerous occasions (Concorde blowout, Dulles, 1979; Concorde crash, De Gaulle, 2000 - in post-accident intercountry meetings [if you remember, a piece of a Continental DC-10 was blamed as the factor leading to the ultimate crash of the Concorde]; the above ATR crash).
There were the symbol generator failures reported in A-300's in the late 1990's, one of which happened in this flight:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07893&key=1
In the full report (offline, have to order it), there is a section on the pilot comments, in which they said the EFIS tripped offline and displayed large white slashes over the EFIS screens - a symbol generator failure, not documented in the flight manuals or in the certification materials.
The DGAC, again in an intercountry filing, defended their certification and oversight actions, even though they were charged with ensuring Airbus designed and implemented EFIS standards appropriately. I do know that the FAA adopted A-98-3 through 5, and I can't find a source that supports DGAC adopting these directives.
There was the Toulouse upset, the one in which the Airbus did a low, gear down pass and was unable to climb out. The French determined that it was the Captain's failure to apply adequate power prior to impacting the trees, but several related incidents (Airbus A-320 over Toulouse, the infamous "side-stick" flight control video; A-300 China Airlines crash in Nagoya; A-300 Pakistan Airways in Nepal; and A-300 Gaurda Indonesian in Indonesia) prompted an investigation, led by MIT, into Airbus' automation practices. The results were never publicized, but in an ariticle in the journal Aviation Saftey (October, 2001), a scathing discussion of Airbus' automation practices was witten, and it cited sources from the MIT investigation into their automation practices.
I do not believe Airbus builds unsafe airframes per se, but I believe there is a categorical collusion between the government oversight boards and the manufacturer (unlike in the States) to "pass" airframes into certification without the proper records and certification review. The FAA does rely heavily on the JAA's certification of a given airframe, and while still performing it's own, independent review, will generally follow foreign certification with their own. I do believe Airbus has failed to utilize adequate human factors compliance and research in their flight deck design, as evidenced in their systems design, evolution of flight controls, and fly-by-wire systems which have all been heavily faulted for their lack to perform in unusual situations.
This dissertation doesn't mean I don't think Boeing has it's black eyes; (servo pack slide coupling interference on the 737; the infamous AWGPS announciator crash Air China had in 1998) but I believe that Boeing has more adequate oversight of their operations than Airbus did. (It's also important to note, many crashes above happened on airframes in which the pilots did not speak english well, this is especially true on the two China airlines incidents.)
So, two NTSB reports, an Aviation Week quote, and a bunch of other incidents... which all form the basis of my opinion.
Cheers,
-Andrew
aviation saftey geek
Well like I said....whatever floats your boat. None of this stuff would be enough to change my flight plans over. Especially as I fly almost exclusively Air Canda (family discount), and their fleet is almost all Airbus.
737's and their uncommanded rolls are a little sketchy IMO..... To my knowledge the never did REALLY figure out why it happened. TWA flight 800.....which intiated the red herring known as SFAR 88.... made my life espcially miserable. When everyone knows it was accidentally (or was it?) shot down......
I have no more faith in the FAA than I do any other governing body. They are very good at pointing out an incorrect zip code in a parts list and the like, but aren't so good at finding ACTUAL engineering flaws.....
737's and their uncommanded rolls are a little sketchy IMO..... To my knowledge the never did REALLY figure out why it happened. TWA flight 800.....which intiated the red herring known as SFAR 88.... made my life espcially miserable. When everyone knows it was accidentally (or was it?) shot down......
I have no more faith in the FAA than I do any other governing body. They are very good at pointing out an incorrect zip code in a parts list and the like, but aren't so good at finding ACTUAL engineering flaws.....
I can grant you that. They believe that the uncommanded roll events are due to the servo pack slide interference, i.e. they used dual servos in one body, and instead of using seals to keep the hydraulic flow ports together, they designed the ports to use an interference fit. Temperature changes supposedly led to a mis-flow of hydraulic fluid, causing a blow down condition at crossover speeds (speeds between 158 KIAS and 170 KIAS, when the you lack alieron authority to counteract yaw). The only way out of the blowdown is to apply the rudder input in the same direction of the yaw - yaw left, apply left rudder, clear the blowdown, servo unjams. I have the report around here somewhere, I'll find it and post it. It's really scary...
SFAR 88 is a total joke. I guess I just like the evil I know (see the Montrose crash, which was the same accident as the ATR, when the NTSB directly faulted the FAA for lack of response to their SLD icing rec's).
Cheers,
-Andrew
SFAR 88 is a total joke. I guess I just like the evil I know (see the Montrose crash, which was the same accident as the ATR, when the NTSB directly faulted the FAA for lack of response to their SLD icing rec's).
Cheers,
-Andrew
Weird....someone at work jsut sent me this.
A320 incident
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
A320 incident
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Just to add a little more fule to the fire.
No casualties reported after two taxing aircraft collide in Beijing
Thursday, August 31, 2006
China’s Civil Aviation Administration have confirmed that on August 27th 2006, an Airbus A320 from China Eastern Airlines scratched a Boeing 777 from China Southern Airlines; while both aircraft were moving along the Beijing Capital International Airport.
Some minor damages were inflicted on the tail fin (vertical stabilizer) of the Boeing 777, while the right wing of the A320 was damaged. There were no reported passenger injuries.
The scheduled flights of the two aircrafts were delayed and passengers were directed to other airlines. Aviation officials are currently investigating the accident.
No casualties reported after two taxing aircraft collide in Beijing
Thursday, August 31, 2006
China’s Civil Aviation Administration have confirmed that on August 27th 2006, an Airbus A320 from China Eastern Airlines scratched a Boeing 777 from China Southern Airlines; while both aircraft were moving along the Beijing Capital International Airport.
Some minor damages were inflicted on the tail fin (vertical stabilizer) of the Boeing 777, while the right wing of the A320 was damaged. There were no reported passenger injuries.
The scheduled flights of the two aircrafts were delayed and passengers were directed to other airlines. Aviation officials are currently investigating the accident.
I don't give a rat's ass what kind of plane it is (well as long as it isn't Russian) as long as it takes me on VACATION.
Yup, that has been an ugly one for a long time. Really, really depressing.
Cheers,
-Andrew